Is Travel Ethical at a Time of Climate Change?
Readers wrestle with their carbon footprint. Does travel equate to being a bad person? one asks. Re , by Andy Newman (Travel section, June 9): I am a regular international traveler, and I recently relocated from Washington to Dubai. I think a lot about my individual carbon footprint and contribution to climate change. Your article articulated many of my thoughts. Should I stop traveling? Was my move to Dubai an ethical choice? Are carbon offsets effective? If so, what type? But the article touched only briefly on one important point: Personal decisions alone wont stop global warming that will take policy changes by governments on a worl dwide scale. As the United States tragically retreats toward nationalism under President Trump, reducing international travel will further contribute to our isolation. We need a global approach to climate change, and the United States must take the lead. International travel is a critical element in achieving the groundswell we need to elect leaders who will act. For minds to change, Americans have to meet their fellow global citizens and see the effects of climate change on people and the environment across the world. John T. Chisholm Dubai, United Arab Emirates Andy Newman perfectly articulates a fear that many travelers lose sleep over: Does travel equate to being a bad person? The author seems to think yes, up until he justifies his own vacation to Greece. Despite what his climate facts imply, Mr. Newman still argues for the gray line. Unfortunately, right now there is no room for blurry areas when it comes to climate change. Those who are not actively helping the cause are in the wrong. Travel may be a difficult sacrifice, but it is a habit that must be broken. One familys vacation is costing another coastal family their home. There is no world where that can be justified. Labeling travel as sinful will not put an end to planes and ships, but it will require vacationers to think twice about how far from home they will go. International travel is not a basic need. Therefore, future Europe vacations can be postponed until this choice does not pose a long-term threat to the earth. Eliana M. Blum New Orleans The tragedy of the commons the term used to describe a situation in which individuals act in accordance with their own self-interest at the expense of the common good is often used to explain the persistence of modern environmental problems. If only we had more data, facts and knowledge of the unintended consequences of our actions, the thinking goes, we would make better choices that would benefit everyone. Ive come to realize that this is wishful thinking. Even with a clear understanding of the consequences of our actions, a vast majority of people will still seek to have their desires satisfied rather than extinguished. The desire for travel is no different. In his Confessions, St. Augustine prayed to be delivered from his lustful desires. Grant me chastity and continence, he pleads with God, but not yet. To put this into modern terms, most environmentally minded people (me included) are living as if to say, I want to reduce my carbon footprint, but not yet. Mark Bessoudo London Andy Newmans article touched a nerve as I grapple with my own carbon footprint, traveling around the globe to visit the places that are vanishing and/or heavily affected by climate change. Im currently in the Pacific visiting island countries, and my only real option is via planes because boat travel would take months to hit the places on my list. Mr. Newman mentions that some might be thinking, go see them before they disappear !, but that can be viewed as evil . In some ways thats exactly what Im doing for the primary purpose of bringing awareness about these vanishing places, but also to take this journey for everyone who cant and, as Mr. Newman points out, shouldnt. If you want another motivation to reduce your carbon footprint or help elect politicians who will take action on climate change, you can look at my website, , and witness what communities are facing and what we are losing as a global community. Lynn Englum Samoa Your examination of how personal travel is the biggest single action a private citizen can take to w ors en climate change is an impressive statistical analysis, but ultimately an unhelpful guide for Americans who want to solve climate change. This is a planetary emergency. Personal sacrifices will never be enough to fix it. We need to make institutional, scaled-up changes across our economy that reduce our reliance on dirty technology and encourage much-needed innovation in green energy. We can start by putting a price on carbon, an . According to ., this single action could lead to a 63 percent drop in total Unite d States greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It will also give industry the financial incentive to find and use clean, efficient energy sources. We wont save the pla net just by canceling our vacations. Citizens should demand solutions that meet the scale of the problem. Brian Schatz Washington